Overall, this law seems reasonable - if a student can write a paper, or create a drawing, about a athlete or a musician, then they should be able to choose religious subjects also. The same goes for religious clubs - they should get the same rights as the chess club.

Laws of this type (which are becoming more popular) are alway written to sound perfectly reasonable (equal treatment, academic fairness, etc.), but the intent behind them and how they end up actually being used and enforced may be another matter entirely. They are usually designed to try to circumvent existing constitutional prohibitions on government support and promotion of religion.

due to school administrators not understanding the 1st amendment rights, and prohibiting religious expression yet allowing other forms of expression (music, sports, etc) that are no more or less relevant to secular education.

And of course, these laws make big news for those involved (the same old politics that we love and hate).

even well intentioned school administrators with no religious agenda are not always well versed in the constitutional law of what is allowed and what isn't. But one phone call to the school district's lawyers or Americans United will usually clear things up, and assure them that there's nothing wrong with letting a student write a term paper titled "Religion in the Plymouth Colony" or some such.

but it's not the person you're replying to.

I'm wracking my brains to figure out what huge problem any reasonable person would have had with that post...

"any reasonable person" - this one wasn't.

Check your DUMail in a couple minutes...

Guess "Doyl" from Tennessee is still bitter about his parents not giving him that e and decided to take it out on everyone else...

I think the ACLU's wait and see approach makes sense.

There is a lot of room for playing the system on this one, but it appears there doesn't need to be any action yet.

Thanks so much for participating in the group, lah. I'm trying to kick start it, but it's not very visible.

is that promotion or endorsement of religion by representatives of the government is unconstitutional (i.e. the establishment clause outweighs free expression in those cases). Yes, religion is singled out, because the framers knew that there was much more potential for mischief and abuse by government entanglement in religion than in art or science, for example.

What does that mean?

It's one thing for a kid to do his paper on Saint Francis, or Buddha, or Darth Vader, for that matter, it's another thing for the teacher to assign the topic if the subject is a religious leader or icon who doesn't or did not have a role in political life (e.g. MLK, yes, Muhamad PBUH maybe not)--I think that's where it will get iffy.

I saw nothing in it regarding curriculum or actions of the teacher. It was all about allowing students to choose religious topics for assignments when they could otherwise choose random non-religious topics. So they could choose to write about St Francis if the assignment was to write of a historical person from that time period. The student could not choose St Francis if the assignment was to write about a political leader of that time period. I think was also a lot of discussion wrt commencement speeches. In general, I think this bill was to address overly restrictive actions of school administrations that come up in the news from time to time.

matter beyond the whole freedom of speech (for students) issue.

Conservapedia cites the equation E=mc2 as *a liberal interpretation of light* which is pushing a type of ignorance that will not get those children into the jobs of tomorrow. Nor will stifling the hunger for knowledge some challenge as unbiblical.

The human mind can separate personal beliefs on a generalized assumption of purpose and reasoning for the universe and still be capable of enjoying the challenges of intellectual pursuits. I don't object to religious exclamations, but a teacher shouldn't be forced to give grades on the equivalent of 'God said,' in tests. Which is like 'This is where I forgot or didn't grasp the subject matter, so I'm going to stop here' thinking.

The before and after school organizing for religion is not a problem; organizing *during* school is. Because churches have their own property for that. It also fiddles with one of the early objections to prayer in schools, in that it develops a sense of majority vs. minority belief systems, and bullying others on belief. Each student is there as an individual to do their best to learn to suceed in life.

This may be an overreaction to students who uttered thanks to Jesus at graduation ceremonies and were disciplined. That was too strict and gave fodder to zealots. A student could thank parents, teachers, the state they lived in or any entity, but were censored by interpretation.

A lot of the poutrage, if not all of it, was political propaganda to demonize public schools and make ridiculous charges. Americans are a rebellious lot by history and don't like being told what to say.

But I see this as a backwards step that will be an improper use of tax monies. I do *not* approve. I'm uncertain that my opinion will carry any weight, though. At least they are continuing with funds for public schools, but this seems an abuse of the taxpayers. But consider the source and those who elected him.

I want the schools to remain secular, but as a society we have changed due to massive media influence. The masses apparently want this. It's part of the promotion of the Idiocracy if this extends past the simple right to speak the name Jesus - whatever - in school.

law to protect religious freedom, I think it could lead to quagmires like you describe.

And how are the schools going to respond when non-christians insist on expressing their religious views? Are they going to permit that?

The majority will taunt the minority if the administration doesn't force one conformity I do agree with - courtesy and not interfering with others.

Unless one is determined to be a stick in the mud as one grows up, individualism will be celebrated as freedom to believe or behave as befits the person. The more experience one has, the more accepting one becomes.

Children are notorious for group think and it's not just from school they learn it. Anyone who sticks out can be abused. That is the primary reason for schools being about learning and not ethnicity, religion or race.

The taxpayers aren't interested in, and should not be forced to pay for dallying about at the school on subjects that are not about education. I admit, I am a bit of stick in the mud about this. I've seen a lot of laxity that may help socialization, perhaps, but doesn't fit the final goal.

The goal being to allow children to learn critical thinking skills to make decisions. And the knowledge base or training to do things they are suited for as adults or to go into higher education, if qualified.

All of that must o be individualized since all brains aren't wired the same. Most definitely, all children do not enter school with the exact same emotional and financial supports from home. I have found the personal ability of teachers to be able to translate their own knowledge to many types of students awesome.

"During" is unconstitutional, imo. Violates the establishment clause.

(on edit) As does any public funding.

The question would seem to be whether other groups can do that and who is paying for the expenses of these groups.

By that I mean "promotion" as some sort of standard. I think if a publicly funded group in a publicly funded setting can be shown to be promoting a specific religious, or anti-religious, agenda ought to be denied government funds.

Lots of grey areas in the arena. Yet codified separation of church/state is a milestone of our system. And it will be debated, legislated and adjudicated for ever I guess.

Further dumbing down of US kids and a really slippery slope in that case. Should be interesting to see how science teachers and those that choose curricula will respond.

In most science classes, you are required to think "inside the box" and there is not much room for free expression, secular or religious.

I see it applying more to art, literature, and composition where often you are given some free reign.

intelligent design as part of their science curriculum. I do think the risk might be real here.

I think it is more the case where some student, say, picks a religious song for their music performance/exam, and the teacher/admin freaks out and prohibits it, then it gets out to the media, lots of outrage, non-outrage, lawyers, blogs, etc. I think this bill is saying you couldn't exclude a religious song simply because it was religious. It applies to a student's voluntary expression.

But based on who is supporting it, I think they anticipate some broader reaching gains.

If a kid answers questions in their science class based on a belief in creationism, is that going to be considered protected and legitimate?

Science is based on being careful and precise. It you ask an open ended question, you should expect a wide range of answers. Clever students have taken advantage of poorly written exams for ages (think about Cliff Clavin's final jeopardy response). If you are asking questions about the theory of evolution, you have to preface the question with that assumption, e.g., "According to the theory of evolution...."

Was not familiar with it.

I think you are right. Good teachers will find ways to make their questions more specific, but what if there are teachers that want to include creationism as a legitimate scientific theory?

I suspect this is one of the absolutely legitimate things that the law is intended to prevent, while (rather disingenuously) saying nothing explicitly to that effect.

And we don't need to spend no stinking time teaching grammar.

If this leads to a further deterioration in their educational system, they are really sunk.

Continued ignorance of students harms the students first and foremost. The people promoting the laws are perfectly happy with the ignorance of their flocks, and don't see this as doing any harm at all.

is this bill an answer to problems with Sikh knives, yarmulkes, or bringing a prayer mat to Show and Tell?

Or, is it another foot in the door to expand Christian outreach into the schools?

Is it bringing Mississippi into the 21st Century or dragging it back to the bad old days?

The ACLU is sitting it out so far, so I suspect it's not as bad as it looks, but it sure has the potential for mischief.

But they often overlook the unintended consequences of these laws.

The younger professor, who probably got the class because nobody else wanted it, or they treated it as a trial-by-fire for new staff, spent an inordinate amount of time shutting down church "Bible Study" sorts of discussion.

Personally, I think he should have had the authority to throw the worst offenders out, who then would have no doubt whined about religious discrimination, but they were truly disrupting the class.

This was a college course, I can't imagine a public school class going any better, especially with Fundamentalist parents getting involved.

or maybe not.

I am hoping that this law would not lead to actual religious classes, but more to the ability of students to express their beliefs in different areas.

Still hard to tell what the intent was, though.

That's something which should be followed on humanitarian grounds even though if its not a law in any state. People are varied and they do belong to different religions. However nobody has the right to discriminate them treat someone nicely and another one badly.

http://www.ranker.com/list/all-acc-schools/sportsyeah